Replies: 3 comments 1 reply
-
|
@kunwp1 Thanks. If possible, it will be good to include a diagram visualize these two options. |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
|
I created a prototype of the plugin in my personal repository: https://github.com/kunwp1/texera-r-plugin I suggest the following plan:
In parallel, we have an ongoing effort to support multiple ports for R UDF operators. Once the repository is in its final location and the integration is in place, we can proceed with that work. Let me know if you have any comments! |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
|
I agree with this plan. @Yicong-Huang What do you think? |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
Uh oh!
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
Uh oh!
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
-
We're moving R language support to a separate optional plugin due to licensing requirements. We chose a standalone library approach over patch files for better maintainability and user experience.
The Problem
rpy2for R supportrpy2is licensed under GPLv2Two Options Evaluated
Option 1: Patch Files ❌
Create a separate repo with patch files that users apply to main Texera.
Why we rejected this:
Option 2: Standalone Plugin ✅ CHOSEN
Create a pip-installable Python package in a separate repository.
# Installation pip install git+https://github.com/Texera/texera-r-plugin.gitWhy we chose this:
Key Points
Performance
No degradation. The plugin runs in-process, same as before:
Backwards Compatibility
Existing R workflows work without modification. Only change: users must install the plugin.
Migration
For R users:
For non-R users:
No action needed. Plugin is optional.
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
All reactions